Sunday, 23 December 2012

TweetIn the final weeks
of the old year, one of the issues which hit the Welsh headlines was the
question of gay marriage.The Government
got itself into a right old mess by proposing a blanket exclusion of churches
from conducting gay weddings.That upset
some, then they suggested a right to opt in which upset others, and finally (or
probably not) they settled on a proposal which treats the Church in Wales as though it were some sort of appendage
of the established Church of England.It had commenters scrambling to find words to
describe the proposal – ‘bizarre’ simply didn’t do it justice.

Underlying the
debate, of course, (leaving aside the extent to which some of the opinions are
simply based on seeking a religious justification for discrimination on grounds
of sexual orientation) is the question of whether what is or is not a
‘marriage’ is something to be defined by civil society or by organised
religion.Whilst Christianity can
certainly lay claim to ownership of ‘holy matrimony’ (the clue is in the
adjective), the concept of ‘marriage’, in some form or other, certainly
pre-dates all of the religions which are today fighting for ownership of the
word.

It is, in essence,
a civil construct, and it is for civil society to determine what it means, and
to change the definition if and when we so wish.Whether religious bodies subsequently choose
to sanctify it in the name of their own particular god is, quite rightly,
entirely a matter for them to decide in line with their own rules about qualification.And civil society has the right, if it
wishes, to allow those religious ceremonies to have the same status as civil
ceremonies.The underlying principle is
about ‘rendering unto Caesar’, to use a biblical phrase.

This is the time of
year when we are regularly implored to remember the ‘true meaning’ of Christmas
as first and foremost a Christian festival.Well, there’s certainly a clue in the name, although that can be lost
somewhat when shortened to Xmas.But for
the peoples of northern Europe at least, the idea of a festival – often
involving some of the activities which are most at odds with what we are told
is the ‘true meaning’ – at, or around, the time of the winter solstice
pre-dates Christ by thousands of years.

It is easy to
understand how, for early man, much more dependent on the vagaries of the
weather and the seasons than are we today, the point at which the days stopped
growing shorter and started lengthening would have had a profound significance, and
be just cause for celebration.With no
knowledge or understanding of the mechanism underlying that change, it must have
looked like an act of the gods.

In trying to gain
acceptance for their new religion the early wise men of the Christian church
knew what they were doing when Pope Julius I decided, without a shred of solid
evidence, that Christ’s birthday would be celebrated on December 25th
each year.It had nothing to do with
historical accuracy, and everything to do with an attempt to Christianise an
existing pagan festival.It worked too –
Saturnalia, Yule, and all the other names by which the winter solstice
celebration had previously been known were rebranded, and the new brand name
stuck.

But old habits die
hard; and underlying that acceptance of the new name and the new meaning, many
of the old traditions survived, and were simply incorporated into the new.This year’s census showed the extent to which
Wales, like the rest of the UK, is becoming
increasingly secular in belief.Coupled
with increasing globalisation, a purely religious festival would surely end up
being slowly relegated to the background as just another holiday.It retains its appeal, I suspect, largely
because it isn’t just a religious occasion; it’s a holiday which can be, and
is, celebrated by people of all religions and none.The power of the sun’s cycle is still there
as a primal force in all of us. Its meaning is whatever we want it to be.

So, whatever
meaning you ascribe to it and however you wish to celebrate it, enjoy the next
week or so.Borthlas will return,
refreshed, in the New Year.

Thursday, 20 December 2012

TweetFor those who
remain unconvinced, despite the scientific consensus to the contrary, that the
man-made contribution to climate change is significant enough to warrant
action, the deposits of shale gas which apparently underlie these islands can only
be a bonanza. For those who are convinced
about the climate change argument, but think that the solution is to use lower carbon
fuels rather than renewables, having large reserves of gas on (or rather under)
home territory makes it easier to argue the case for gas.

I disagree with them,
but those are honest arguments; it’s just the premise on which they are based which
is in question. Equally honest are the arguments
of those who think that what is required is a wholesale shift from carbon fuels
to renewables, and that extending the large scale use of gas is deferring, rather
than solving the problem. From that viewpoint,
opposition to fracking is a natural consequence.

Rather less honest,
though, are those who seem to be arguing that we should continue to use gas ‘but
not that gas’. Any politicians who have supported
– or merely failed to oppose – the construction of new gas-fired power stations
are being more than a little disingenuous in trying to ride a wave of public opinion
concerned about fracking.Effectively
they’re saying that using gas is fine as long as it comes from somewhere else.

Now it might be
argued that fracking has an environmental cost associated with it; but then so
does all extraction of fossil fuel from the earth.It’s just that, when we see the gas being delivered
to the Haven in large tankers, we’re not seeing that environmental cost.It doesn’t mean that nobody else is.A determination to protect the environment at
home whilst depending on products produced by environmental damage done elsewhere
isn’t being green; it’s just nimbyism writ large.

We can make choices
about policy on energy as on anything else; but when we’ve made a choice, we have
to be willing to accept the consequences, not just load them on someone
else.For me, the choice is a simple
one; either plan to phase out the use of gas, or else accept that, sooner or
later, it has to come from fracking.It’s
not honest to support the continued use of gas whilst opposing the exploitation of reserves.

Thursday, 13 December 2012

Tweet
I'm sure that there was an episode of Yes Minister in which Sir Humphrey explained to the hapless Minister how he could gain a lot of public credit for stopping a certain policy from being implemented. The Minister's response was to say that the Government wasn't intending to do that anyway, so how could he stop it? Ah, said Sir Humphrey, but if you leak the fact that the Government might be thinking about it, you can then launch a campign to stop it, and it's a campaign which you're certain to win.

If that wasn't an episode, then it certainly deserved to be.

There's more than a passing resemblance between that scenario and the Lib Dems' 'campaign' against regional pay. Perhaps they're using the same script writer?

Wednesday, 12 December 2012

TweetThe decision by
Starbucks to pay some Corporation Tax over the next two years highlights a
feature of the tax system which is widely used but not so widely known.For large multi-national companies, Corporation
Tax is essentially a voluntary tax.They
can decide how much to pay and where.

It isn’t new.It’s something which large oil companies in
particular have long been able to do.If
you own the whole supply chain from exploration through to retail, vesting
different parts of it in different companies based in different countries but
within the same group allows you to set transfer prices in a way which
generates the ‘profits’ in the most favourable jurisdiction.

What Starbucks and
the others have been doing is simply a variation on that.And the main thing that they’ve done
differently is to be greedy – wiser companies have taken advantage of the rule
in a more moderate fashion which leaves them paying something to everyone.

The recent stories
have also highlighted another factor – the use of nameplate companies.These are companies, set up in low tax
jurisdictions, which don’t do anything very much other than act as a repository
for profit, and a means of avoiding tax.Ireland has been
doing a bit of that of late; setting a low rate of company taxation has
encouraged companies to set up nameplate companies in Ireland.Ireland has gained, the companies
have gained – it’s just the rest of us who’ve lost.

It underlines the
danger of seeing company taxation as a competitive tool, and potentially gives ammunition
to those keen to avoid devolution of Corporation Tax in the UK.A race to the bottom might generate local
benefits, but those benefits are not always based on real economic activity.A race to the bottom helps no-one in the end.

What’s noticeably
absent from the Starbucks statement is any commitment to change their
accounting practices in the long term.The PR that they’re getting from this gesture is good; but there’s no
sign that they are really going to change.They also haven’t given, a far as I’m aware, any commitment that they
won’t simply use the tax paid ‘voluntarily’ over the next two years to offset
any taxes which might become due in future years; something which they’re
perfectly entitled to do.

Since none of the
companies concerned have actually done anything illegal – indeed, they are
under a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value – it’s unrealistic to
expect any great change in behaviour unless the legal framework in which they
operate is changed.The government is
showing little sign of any willingness to tackle that issue.Again, that’s not really surprising
– looked at as purely a tax collection issue, it’s hard to see what they could
do effectively.

But what if we
looked at the issue more widely?Why
does the law say that companies are obliged to maximise shareholder value
(within the law, naturally) regardless of the interests of other stakeholders?Setting the interests of capital above other interests
might be a reflection of where we are; but there’s nothing inevitable about
that.We can order things differently if
we wish.It’s not a proposal I’d expect
from the current government – but I’m not hearing it from any of the opposition
parties either.Why are they all so
wedded to the rule of capital?

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

TweetI doubt that there’s
much to argue with in Barroso’s claim that an independent Scotland (or Wales,
or Catalonia...)
would need to apply for membership of the EU.It’s probably a fair reflection of the legal position.

(Whether it’s only Scotland
which would need to apply is another interesting legal question, which probably
revolves around whether independence is a case of secession from the UK, or dissolution of the UK.In the second case it seems likely that, in
strict legal terms, both successor states would need to apply, since if one of
them cannot be assumed to be inheriting the rights and obligations of the
predecessor state, then neither can the other.One for the legal anoraks.)

It doesn’t exactly
follow, though, that Scotland’s
application, and the negotiations surrounding it, would take place from 'outside the
EU', as the unionists have suggested.They seem to be making the wholly invalid suggestion that the referendum
on independence takes place one day, and Scotland becomes independent the
minute the result is announced.That’s
just plain silly.

A ‘yes’ vote in a
referendum (which I still fear is unlikely in the First Scottish Independence
Referendum) would inevitably be followed by a period of negotiation on the
detail.That negotiation would cover the
allocation of assets and liabilities between Scotland
and RUK, as well as any international obligations and rights – including Scotland’s
status in the EU.Only after conclusion
of all those discussions would independence take effect – and it is not beyond
the bounds of possibility that there would be another, confirmatory, referendum
on the detail.It is in no-one’s
interest for there not to be an orderly and planned transfer of power and
responsibility.

The legal question
regarding the EU is what made the news; but the more pertinent question is not
whether Scotland
would need to apply or not, but whether that application would be accepted.Short of ridiculous demands being placed by Scotland’s new
government, it is hard to see how any application would not be successful.In purely pragmatic terms, why on earth would
the other member states not welcome a new state?Rejecting an application would run counter to
the whole European project.

And nothing in what
Barroso said touched at all on how the application would be treated – he merely
reiterated what has been said before, which is that application would be
necessary.It is others who have jumped
on his statement to raise doubts about the success of any application, and they’ve
done so not from any legal considerations, but as a form of argument against
Scottish independence.

It’s certainly true
that the Spanish state is unlikely to express any enthusiasm in advance of the situation
arising, and would prefer that the situation never arose at all, because it
might encourage the Catalonians and others.But does that really mean that they would seek to block an application
when it came before them?I doubt
it.When push comes to shove, I really
can’t see any EU member states arguing that they should try to block the
democratic will of the people of Scotland – I just don’t expect them
to admit it in advance.

Then we come to the
way that the unionists in the UK
are using the statement.Do they really
and truly believe that they can win the referendum by telling people in Scotland that they can’t be independent because Spain
won’t allow it?Not only is that not a
particularly honest argument, it has the potential for being a massive own
goal, and encouraging people to vote yes.They’ll have to find better arguments than that one.

Monday, 10 December 2012

TweetThere’s been
something of a hoo-ha in Carmarthenshire in recent months about the vexed
question as to whether people should, or should not, be allowed to record or
film meetings of the county council.Some councils allow it, others do not; Carmarthenshire is in the latter
category.

Whilst the
availability of better and cheaper technology has made the question more
pertinent, it isn’t a new question.It
was one which was debated in the old Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council back in
the 1980s, when I was a member of that council.

The ruling group at
the time (Tories, as it happens, but it could equally have been the other lot)
wanted to bar the recording of meetings and proposed a resolution to achieve
that – banning the use of ‘recording instruments’.It was aimed at the press, rather than the
public – the idea that the public might want to record their goings on would
have seemed more than a little strange to them.

When it was
debated, I rose to my hind legs, brandished my biro non-aggressively, and
announced that I was holding a ‘recording instrument’ in my hand.Were they, I asked, going to ban the use of
biros in the Chamber as well?The motion
was hastily amended to refer to, as I recall, ‘mechanical recording instruments’,
and despite my own continued objections was duly passed.

The arguments for
banning the practice then were much the same as they are now – and they have
grown no more valid with the passing of time.Despite what some councillors claim, it is no easier to quote someone
out of context using a voice recorder than it is using a biro – but at least in
the one case there’s a record to demonstrate whether it was, or was not, out of
context.

There is an
expressed fear about being misquoted, but I rather suspect that the fear is
about not being misquoted.

I don’t think that
I was the most articulate and coherent speaker in the council chamber (although
I’m immodest enough to claim that I wasn’t the most inarticulate either), and
anyone who does a lot of public speaking will be only too aware that sometimes
things can come out not quite as intended.I was often misquoted by the local press for things I’d said in the Council
Chamber – but here’s the thing: what appeared in print was invariably an improvement
on what I’d actually said.All
hesitations and slips ups were miraculously removed by the local journos in the
interests of creating a readable story.

Could it just be
the case that some councillors in Carmarthenshire (unnamed to protect the
potentially guilty) are actually more worried about not being misquoted?

Thursday, 6 December 2012

TweetThree different
categories of activity, one good and two bad; and most of us think that we know
the difference between them.But the
lines can sometimes be a little “fuzzy” to say the least.

It was a point
which came to mind when I saw the television footage last week of the raid by
the Information Commissioner’s office on a house from which individuals had
been sending those annoying text messages telling us that we may be owed a
certain amount of money for having been mis-sold PPI.It was an interesting counterpoint to a story,
carried I think by the Sunday Times, a couple of weeks ago about the firms
which actually claim the PPI on behalf of people.

That story talked
about the 'entrepreneurs' who have established companies to process claims.They’ve seen a gap in the market, moved in,
and made substantial fortunes as a result.

But by doing what,
precisely?Filling in forms which people
could just as easily fill in themselves – and taking 10% of the proceeds for so
doing?I’m sure that they’d describe it
as providing a service for people who, for whatever reason, are unable or
unwilling to do the job themselves.

There’s
nothing wrong with that per se.Making a
profit by providing a service is a perfectly normal business activity.It might, though, sit more comfortably with a
lot of us if they actually told their customers how easy the job really
is.Whatever, it seems that in total
these companies have managed to clean up around £1 billion from the victims of
the sold PPI insurance. It may sound a
little dodgy to take that much money for doing so little, but if it starts and
ends there, it is perfectly legal and it’s up to individuals to say no rather
than fall for the marketing ploy.But
it’s the marketing of these services which starts to raise some questions about
boundaries.

Apparently the
companies who send us those annoying text messages are only middlemen.However, it does appear that the legitimate
companies gain access to potential ‘customers’ by purchasing names and
addresses from those middlemen, so the ‘entrepreneurs’ are only contacting
those who’ve already been hooked.Whether that still leaves them as entirely legitimate entrepreneurs is a matter
of opinion – do they really have no responsibility for any illegality committed before they become involved, such as the way in which their
contact lists are obtained?

According to the
news reports these text messages say that you ‘may’ be owed a certain amount of
money – I’m sure I’m not the only one to have received a message which was far
more definitive than that.Only a week ago I had one telling me that I am owed £3350 from a
mis-sold PPI policy.Since I’ve never
been sold, let alone mis-sold, PPI, the precision with which they can tell me
how much I’m owed is remarkable.From
press reports I know that the figure quoted is actually based on an average of
the sums recovered for a vast number of people – but that isn’t what the
message said.It very explicitly told me
that I am owed £3350. It's a con.

About a month ago I
also had a message telling me that the sender had been trying to contact me
about ‘my accident’ to help me claim compensation – and it’s not the first one
of those I’ve had either.(Let me hasten
to reassure both my readers that I have had no accident and remain in
apparently good health.) A little bit of
research on the telephone numbers used for these two messages suggests –
although it does not conclusively prove – that it’s the same people behind
both.

Then we have those
nice Asian people from the “Windows support department” telephoning me to offer
me assistance to resolve the ‘problems’ which my computer has, they claim,
reported to them (although their lack of ability to explain how my computer has
reported these ‘problems’ rapidly becomes apparent when they are challenged).

Perhaps in India these
people work in what looks like a respectable and successful call centre, established
by local entrepreneurs.To me they just
look like crooks.

I don’t wish to denigrate
successful entrepreneurialism; it’s key to our economic success.We should be careful though about according the
accolade to any and every company which makes large profits.Successful and acceptable entrepreneurialism depends on more
than that.Companies based on
activities which are dubious or in some cases downright illegal, even if not
performed directly by the companies themselves, have no place in a successful
entrepreneurial market.

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

TweetI heard an opponent
of wind farms speaking at a meeting recently.No surprise that I don’t agree with his
conclusion; but his arguments were mostly of the sort that I can understand and
sympathise with, to do with landscape issues and the view.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course,
but landscape issues are an entirely honest basis for opposition.It’s just that they need to be balanced
against the question of how we source our electricity.

However, in the
middle of his discourse, he dropped in a statistic.The areas of mid Wales where wind farms are being
built are at such a distance from the National Grid, he claimed, that 30% of
the electricity produced is lost before it even gets to the grid.It reminded me rather of the claim that 78.6%
of all statistics used by politicians (including of course that figure of 78.6%)
are made up on the spot.

The 30% figure is
one often quoted – there are plenty of instances of that or a similar figure to be
found on the Internet, but what is the basis for it?I got involved in a lengthy debate with one
of Plaid’s Assembly candidates in another blog post on this very question about
two years ago.He quoted the same figure
at me.His response to my question about
the source of the statistic met, initially, with repeated and vehement assertion that
the figure was correct and an expectation that I would simply accept it.Eventually however he admitted that he had no
basis whatsoever to justify the use of that figure.

There are losses
during transition of course.The
National Grid estimates them at around 2% for high-voltage transmission system
and up to another 6% for the lower voltage distribution system, making a total maximum loss of around 8%.The
most usual response of opponents to this is the Mandy Rice Davies rebuttal –
“they would say that wouldn’t they?”.Well, yes, they would; but that isn’t enough to make it untrue.

The higher the
voltage, the lower the losses; so at the proposed voltage for the link from the
Mid Wales wind farm to the Grid, the loss would probably be in the range of 2
to 6%.Ironically, the lower voltages
preferred by anti-wind campaigners in order to have smaller pylons would
actually put that figure closer to the top end of that range that it would otherwise be.In any event, however, it is still hugely below
the 30% suggested.

Apart from my
natural aversion to made-up and unjustifiable statistics, does it even
matter?Clearly transporting expensive
fossil fuels to the middle of nowhere and then burning them to generate
electricity which loses a large proportion of energy before reaching its point
of use would be a silly thing to do.But,
even if the loss from wind farms were to be 30%, rather than the more realistic figure of 3-5%,
the advantage of wind power is that the fuel is essentially “free” and, for all
practical purposes, is unlimited.So
losing part of it en route really isn’t a problem in the way presented.

The 30% figure is
not only hopelessly inaccurate; even if it were true it does nothing for the
argument in support of which it is being deployed.

Tuesday, 4 December 2012

TweetThe level at which
the “discussion” between Cardiff and London over the European
Union budget is occurring is disappointing to say the least.To hear the politicians talk one would think
that the only factor of any import is what structure gives Wales the
largest sum of money.

It’s certainly true
that Wales
is a net beneficiary of EU funding.I’d
prefer that it were not so, because the fact that it is true is based on
failure not success – the failure of successive UK governments to address what
are, at a UK level, “regional” economic disparities.But whilst the consequential availability of
EU funds is better than not having them, no government –either in Cardiff or in London
– has exactly covered itself in glory over the application of those funds.It often looks as though we’re just pouring
water into the sands.

More importantly,
it isn’t structure that determines how much regional aid we get, its
policy.The claim by opponents of the EU
that the UK government could
direct more funds to the poorer regions of the UK
if it didn’t send the money via Brussels
first is an entirely fair one.The
problem, though, lies in the word “could”.The UK
government “could” do lots of things if it wanted; but it has shown little
propensity – under Labour or Conservative governments – to turn a “could” into
a “would”.No surprise at the lack of
trust therefore.

But the EU’s
current stance on regional development isn’t guaranteed forever either.Like UK government policy, it can always
be changed.I can understand why people
think that the EU policy is more likely to stay the same than UK policy is to
change; but is that really the basis on which we should make a decision about
our role in the European Union?There’s
more to the idea of the European Union than that.

Both Labour and
Plaid Cymru politicians have recently speculated on what would happen in a
referendum on the European Union if England wanted out and Wales and Scotland
wanted in.I suspect that there’s a
certain amount of wishful fantasising involved there; whilst the views of Welsh
politicians and those of English politicians might seem to diverge on the
subject, I very much doubt that the views of the electors will show anything
like as much divergence.

Notwithstanding the
arguments about economic interest – or perhaps because that’s the limit of the
support the Welsh politicians can manage to express – I rather suspect that any
referendum would, in practice, be about other matters entirely.And whilst I’d love to be proved wrong, I see
no real evidence that Welsh opinion and English opinion on the Daily Mail type
of attitude to the European Union are really very different.

Monday, 3 December 2012

TweetOn Wednesday, the
Chancellor is due to present his autumn statement, and the speculation about
its content is already rife.One widely
floated suggestion is that he will limit tax relief on pension contributions
for higher earners.

This is a proposal
I’d support.Whilst giving tax relief to
encourage people to save for their retirement through recognised pension
schemes is a sensible approach, the current system allows disproportionate
benefit to higher rate tax payers.It’s
an example of a state ‘benefit’ which aids the most well-off more than the
poorest.

Sadly, the rumours
suggest that rather than limiting tax relief to basic rate, he will instead
propose a cut off point for the maximum level of tax free contributions.Still, it’s at least a nod in the right
direction, even if it limits the impact to those earning £200,000 or more a
year.

It was the CBI’s
response which struck me.It warned that
setting the maximum pension contribution level any lower than £50,000 a year
would “hit vast swathes of middle-income earners”.In short, they believe that people who are able
to save £40,000 a year out of their income towards their retirement are “middle
earners”.It’s hard to believe that they
inhabit the same planet as the rest of us.